1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 0 2 - 0 8 - 4 8 7 - CV S H A W N A M ER C ER , I N D I V I D U A LLY AP P ELL ANT A N D A S REPRES EN TA TI V E O F TH E E S T A T E O F B E N N IE M E R C E R , D EC EA S ED , A N D A S N A TU R A L M OT HE R AN D N E XT F R I E ND OF M E L I S S A ME R CE R , A M I N O R C H I LD V . RI C H A RD SC H ERI G ER A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 90TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F YO UN G CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppel l ant S haw na M er cer at t em pt s t o appeal f r om an or dersever i ng her
v i c a ri o u s l i a b i l i ty c l a i m fro m h e r m a i n c a u s e o f a c ti o n a g a i n s t A p p e l l e e R i c h a rd Scher i ger . W e d i sm i ss f orw antofj ur i sd i ct i on.2

S cher i gerf i l ed a m ot i on t o severa cl ai m f orvi car i ous l i abi l i t y t hatM er cer added t o her or i gi nal t or t cl ai m s i n t r i al cour t cause num ber 30 18 8. Th e t r i al
cour tsever ed M er cer ’ s vi car i ous l i abi l i t y cl ai m i nt o t r i al c o u rt cause num ber 3 0 1 8 8 -A , a n d “ O R D E R E D th a t a l l d i s c o v e ry i n th e s e v e re d C a u s e N o . 3 0 1 8 8 -A sh al l be , an d r em ai n, A BA TED unt i l f i nal adj udi ca t i on of al l cl ai m s i n t he pr es ent C a u s e N o . 3 0 1 8 8 .” M e r c e r f ile d a d o c u m e n tin d ic a t in g h e rd e s ir e t o a p p e a l t h is
o rd e r. O n D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , w e n o t if ie d t h e p a r t ie s t h a tita p p e a r e d t h a tt h is
c o u r tla c k e d ju r is d ic t io n b e c a u s e t h e r e m ig h t n o t b e a f in a l a p p e a la b le o r d e rin
cause num ber30 18 8- A . O url et t er al so i nf or m ed t he par t i es t hatunl ess t hey f i l ed a r es pons e s how i ng gr ounds f orco nt i n u i n g t he app ea l by M onda y, D ec em ber29, 2008 , t hi s at t em pt ed app ea l w oul d be di sm i ss ed f orw antof j u ri s d i c ti o n . S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 42 . 3( a) . M er cer f i l ed a r esponse on D ecem ber 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 , b u ts h e f a ile d t o s h o w g r o u n d s f o rc o n t in u in g t h e a p p e a l. A ppe l l at e c our t s hav e j ur i sd i ct i on ov erap pea l s f r om f i nal j udgm ent s and f r om speci f i c t ypes ofi nt er l ocutor y or der s desi gnated by t he l egi sl at ur e as a p p e a l a b l e . L eh m a n n v. Ha r-C o n C o rp . , 3 9 S . W .3 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 1 );
se e, e. g. , T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 5 1 .0 1 4 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ). A j udg m ent i s f i nal and appeal abl e i f i t di sposes of al l par t i es and a ll is s u es. Lehm ann , 39 S. W . 3d at195. An or dert hatdoe s notdi sp os e ofal l pa r t i es an d3

al l i s s u e s in th e case m ustbe cl assi f i ed, f orpur poses ofappeal , as an
u n a p p e a l a b l e i n te rl o c u to ry o rd e r. R uizv. R uiz , 946 S . W . 2d 123, 124 ( Tex. A pp. — El Paso 1 99 7, no pet . ) . W i t hou t af f i r m at i ve st at ut or y aut hor i t y t o hear
a n i n te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l , th i s c o u rt i s w i th o u t j u ri s d i c ti o n . Id .; se e a l so Kief er v. K i ef er, 132 S . W . 3d 601 , 602 ( Tex. A pp. — For tW or t h 2004, no p et . ) ( hol di ng t h a t p r o t e c t iv e o r d e r r e n d e r e d d u r in g t h e p e n d e n c y o fa d iv o r c e w a s n o ta f in a l, appeal abl e or der ) . W her e, as her e, t he sever ance or derexpr essl y contem pl at es f ut ur e ac t i on i n t he new s eve r ed ca us e n um beran d ba se s t hi s f ut ur e a ct i on on f ut ur e e ven t s i n th e o r i gi nal ca us e n um ber , t her e c an be no f i nal j udgm entor app ea l abl e or der . S e e, e. g. , Th ompson v. Beyer, 91 S. W . 3d 902, 904 ( Tex. A p p .— D a l l a s 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.) (“ A s a ru l e , a s e v e ra n c e o f a n in t e rl o c u to ry j udgm ent i nt o a se ver ed ac t i on m ak es i tf i nal i fal l cl ai m s i n t he se ver ed ac t i on h a v e b e e n d i s p o s e d o f, unless the order of severance i

ndicates f

urth er proce edi

ngsare to beha d i

n the se vered ac ti

on .” (e m p h a s i s a d d e d )). T h e la n g u a g e o ft h e o r d e r f r o m w h ic h M e r c e r a t t e m p t s t o a p p e a l d ir e c t ly contem pl at es f ut u re a c ti on, cl ear l y st at i ng t hatal l di scover y i n t he sever ed
c a u s e o f a c ti o n , c a u s e n u m b e r 3 0 1 8 8 -A , “ sh a l l b e. . . A BA TED until final
a dj ud i c a ti on o f a l l c l a i m s i n thep re s ent

Caus eNo. 3018 8 .” [E m p h a s i s a d d e d .]2 ... H ow ever , th is di sm i ssal shoul d not be const r ued t o pr event M er cer

fro m l a te r p u rs u i n g a ti m e l y a p p e a l fro m a n a c tu a l fi n a l j u d g m e n t i n tri a l c o u rt c a u s e n u mb e r3 0 1 8 8

- A. 4 Beca us e t he or der i s notf i nal an d a ppe al abl e, w e m us tdi sm i ss t hi s app ea l f or
w antofj ur i sd i ct i on. 2 S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 2 .3 (a ), 4 3 .2 (f). P E R CU R I AM P A N E L : M C C O Y , J .; C A Y C E , C .J .; a n d M E IE R , J . DEL I VERE D: J a nu a r y 22, 2009